Revista
de la
Universidad
del Zulia
Fundada en 1947
por el Dr. Jesús Enrique Lossada
DEPÓSITO LEGAL ZU2020000153
ISSN 0041-8811
E-ISSN 2665-0428
Ciencias del
Agro,
Ingeniería
y Tecnología
Año 13 N° 36
Enero - Abril 2022
Tercera Época
Maracaibo-Venezuela
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
373
The experience of EU countries towards the development of
infrastructure and logistics hubs
Valeria Slatvinska*
Olha Kibik**
Svitlana Oneshko***
Serhii Fesak****
ABSTRACT
The objective of the study is to assess the development of infrastructure and logistics hubs using
the example of the EU countries, namely: Germany, Spain and Poland. The methodology is based
on a comparative analysis of infrastructure hubs development indicators in Germany, Spain and
Poland according to InfraCompass. Results. The general policy and strategy of the EU as a
supranational institution determines the strategic goals and policies of Germany, Spain, and
Poland in the field of infrastructure and logistics development. The EU provides financial
incentives, political and administrative support for infrastructure hubs and logistics. Based on
the research results, Germany, Spain, and Poland have common strengths contributing to
infrastructure development: fair and transparent public procurement, a good insolvency
protection system (Germany and Poland), a high credit rating (Germany), and financial stability
(Poland). The general factors of the infrastructure facilities development are: in Germany – the
development of infrastructure hubs is ensured by an effective regulatory framework and
established rules for permitting, a quality legal system, a stable financial sector; in Spain –
effective regulatory framework, effective tools of public administration; in Poland – the
regulatory framework and infrastructure management systems.
KEY WORDS: Transport infrastructure; public transport; Transport Economics; transport
planning.
*Teacher, Department of criminal law, process and criminalistics, International humanitarian
university. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-981X. E-mail: slatvinskaya_valeriya@ukr.net
**Head of Department of National Economy, Doctor of Economics, Department of National
Economy, National University “Odessa Law Academy”
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9587-578X. E-mail: kibik@ukr.net
*** PhD, professor, Department of Economics and Finance, Odessa National Maritime University.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2313-3984. E-mail: osvfox1@gmail.com
**** Candidate of Sciences of State Administration, Director of LLC "GEO-SYNTHEZ", Department
of Economic Policy and Management, Educational and Scientific lnstitute of Public Administration
"Karazin Kharkiv National University".
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8530-9976. E-mail: fesak.sergey@gmail.com
Recibido: 29/09/2021 Aceptado: 10/11/2021
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
374
La experiencia de los países de la UE en el desarrollo de
infraestructura y centros logísticos
RESUMEN
El objetivo del estudio es evaluar el desarrollo de la infraestructura y los centros logísticos
utilizando el ejemplo de los países de la UE, a saber: Alemania, España y Polonia. La
metodología se basa en un análisis comparativo de los indicadores de desarrollo de los hubs
de infraestructura en Alemania, España y Polonia según InfraCompass. Resultados. La
política y estrategia general de la UE como institución supranacional determina los objetivos
estratégicos y las políticas de Alemania, España y Polonia en el ámbito del desarrollo de
infraestructuras y logística. La UE ofrece incentivos financieros, apoyo político y
administrativo para centros de infraestructura y logística. Según los resultados de la
investigación, Alemania, España y Polonia tienen puntos fuertes comunes que contribuyen al
desarrollo de la infraestructura: contratación pública justa y transparente, un buen sistema
de protección frente a la insolvencia (Alemania y Polonia), una alta calificación crediticia
(Alemania) y estabilidad financiera (Polonia). Los factores generales del desarrollo de las
instalaciones de infraestructura son: en Alemania - el desarrollo de los centros de
infraestructura está asegurado por un marco regulatorio efectivo y reglas establecidas para la
concesión de permisos, un sistema legal de calidad, un sector financiero estable; en España -
marco regulatorio eficaz, herramientas eficaces de administración pública; en Polonia: el
marco regulatorio y los sistemas de gestión de la infraestructura.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Infraestructura de transporte; transporte público; Economía del
transporte; planificación del transporte.
Introduction
The transfer of freight flows from road to more sustainable modes of transport, such
as rail, inland waterway and maritime transport has been recognized by the European
Commission (EC) as an important strategy towards “creating a sustainable transport system
that meets economic, social and environmental needs” (CEC, 2006; 2009). For decades,
constant activities have been taken in order to promote and implement such a modal shift
(CEC, 2006). However, the available statistics indicate to the fact that the volumes
transferred from road transport to other above-mentioned modes of transport were limited
by the expectation of stabilization of the modal division in the long run; that is, the transport
system required an efficient distribution of traffic flows between all modes of transport
(CEC, 2006). Under the circumstances outlined, the EC Freight Transport and Logistics
Action Plan (CEC, 2007) emphasizes that additional efforts and measures are needed to
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
375
achieve a more significant modal shift. The latest policy strategy, set out in the White Paper
on Transport of the European Commission (EC, 2011), includes infrastructure development,
improving the quality of transport services and regulatory measures.
The strategic goals and policies of the EU countries in the field of infrastructure and
logistics development provide for the need for financing, in particular, through investment
mechanisms and various forms of public-private partnerships. Along with this, the policy
involves not just the development of infrastructure, but the formation of nodes (hubs) in
order to optimize transport and logistics flows. Investment needs for the development of
infrastructure hubs on an international scale will grow steadily until 2040: according to
estimation, current investment needs are 78, 782 billion USD, needs amount 93,653 billion
USD, and projected needs are 97,195 billion USD until 2040 (Outlook, 2017). Investments are
directed to the development of the transport sector (roads, railways), airports, ports, energy,
telecommunications, etc.
Transport sphere experts with a strategic vision (mainly in Germany, France, the
Netherlands and Sweden) in the 1980s and 1990s predicted that the regulation of transport
would be insufficient. Since the late 1990s, an innovative concept has begun to develop
integrating networks, vehicles, terminals and cargo, forming nodes (hubs) as infrastructure
centres, optimizing logistics transportation and solving the problem of loads due to the
growth of traffic flows. For instance, in 1995, a memorandum was adopted for the
development of a platform by German railway and logistics experts (Kreutzberger, 2010) and
an initiative of Deutsche Bahn concerning development of the Megahub in Lehrte (near
Hanover). This new generation terminal has been designed for the large-scale exchange of
continental load units between trains that concurrently visit a node (hub). In France, the
new generation Commutor terminals were integrated into the railway network, which was
an extremely innovative solution. Two hub terminals began servicing intermodal rail hub and
HS networks, providing transport services to large areas of France and northern Germany
(Kreutzberger, 2016). The development of infrastructure hubs provided for the automation
and robotization of work, business processes; in particular, the terminals were equipped
with a terminal internal transport and sorting system (TITSS).
The above mentioned tendencies in the development of infrastructure and logistics
hubs indicate the relevance of studying this issue. The purpose of the academic paper lies in
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
376
assessing the development of infrastructure and logistics hubs using the example of the
leading EU countries, namely: Germany, Spain and Poland, forasmuch as the policy of these
countries in the direction outlined is an example for other member states to follow.
1. Literature Review
The creation of hubs is driven by the need to ensure economic growth (Crescenzi &
Rodríguez-Pose, 2008; Rodríguez-Pose, Crescenzi & Di Cataldo, 2015; Perez-Montiel &
Manera, 2021), productivity and the formation of infrastructure networks (Zhang, Janic &
Tavasszy, 2015; Romero & Van Waeyenberge, 2020). Infrastructure and logistics hubs are
crucial in the location of companies, especially when making decisions concerning foreign
investment. Their role is growing due to the spread of intermodal logistics networks
providing transportation of goods on a large scale (Mindur & Hajdul, 2011; Morin et al., 2015).
The scientific literature considers the global importance of railway junctions as centres of
the logistics network (Schmidt, 2013; Kreutzberger & Konings, 2016), energy transport hubs
(Çeviköz, 2016), transport corridors, expanding the economic potential of regions within the
country (Zakrzewski & Nowacki, 2016), transport networks within cities as a way to
expand telecommunications infrastructure (Rutherford, 2005), hub airports functioning as
international and supra-regional infrastructure. All the outlined has a decisive impact on the
competitiveness of firms and stimulates urban development (Romberg, 1996; Thierstein &
Conventz, 2014).
Overall, the literature review has revealed limited quantitative studies of
infrastructure hub development indicators in Germany, Spain and Poland. It should be noted
that high-quality models of infrastructure and logistics hubs dominate in the publications
including, for instance, railway junctions, energy transport centres and / or corridors, hub
airports. This proves the relevance of studying the features of the development of
infrastructure and logistics centres in the leading EU countries, strengths and development
potential of infrastructure facilities through the strategy and policy of regulatory countries.
2. Methodology
The development indicators of infrastructure hubs in Germany, Spain and Poland have
been used in the research, according to InfraCompass (2021), which assesses the
development of infrastructure networks in the country by the factors as follows: Activity,
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
377
Financial markets, Funding capacity, Governance, Permits, Planning, Procurement,
Regulatory frameworks. The factors specified are drivers of infrastructure development and
logistics in countries. Due to the fact that Germany and Spain are the most efficient states in
the development of infrastructure and logistics, these countries have been chosen for analysis
and the possibility of forming the main favourable growth factors.
3. Results
The development of infrastructure and logistics hubs in Germany, Spain and Poland
is determined by factors, which are different in each country, contributing to investment and
innovation growth. The countries have high efficiency of air services, seaport and train
services (especially in Spain), low level of electricity losses and high quality of electricity
supply. The high level of welfare (GDP per capita, especially in Germany) contributes to the
development of infrastructure (Table 1).
Table 1. Infrastructure hub development indicators, 2019.
Indicator
Germany
Spain
Efficiency of air transport services (1-7
best)
5,47
5,61
Efficiency of seaport services (1-7 best)
5,24
5,38
Efficiency of train services (1-7 best)
4,92
5,37
Electricity access, % of population
100,00
100,00
Electricity supply quality, % of output
lost
4,30
9,46
GDP per capita, USD
46564,00
29961,00
Infrastructure gap, % of GDP
0,00
0,12
Infrastructure investment1, % of GDP
1,54
2,96
Infrastructure quality, (0-100 best)
90,21
90,31
Private infrastructure investment2, 5-
year average, USD millions
3378,29
684,23
Quality of road infrastructure, (1-7
best)
5,30
5,70
Reliability of water supply (1-7 best)
6,10
6,61
Road connectivity (0-100 best)
95,07
100,00
Source: InfraCompass (2021).
1
Total economic infrastructure expenditure, based on government and multi-lateral development agency
estimates.
2
Financial close value of privately financed economic infrastructure.
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
378
The total infrastructure development expenditures are the largest in Poland – 3,55%
of GDP (with a GDP of 565,9 billion US dollars, 20,09 billion dollars of investments in 2019);
in Spain, the indicator is 2,96% (with a GDP of 139,79 billion USD, 41,38 billion investment
in 2019); in Germany, the indicator is 1,54% (with a GDP of 3 864,3 billion US dollars, in fact,
59,51 billion US dollars of investment in 2019). The high level of investments in the
infrastructure of Germany and Spain ensures its high quality (quality ratings of 90,21 and
90,31, respectively), while the indicator in Poland is slightly lower (81,15). Private
infrastructure investments amount to 3 378,29 million USD in Germany, 684,23 million USD
in Spain and 249,36 million USD in Poland for the last five years (2015-2020).
In Germany, the development of infrastructure hubs is ensured by an effective
regulatory framework and established rules for granting permits, providing support in the
creation of enterprises and maintaining reliable protection of creditors from insolvency
(Table 2). The second factor of infrastructural development is a high-quality legal system, a
stable financial sector, which contribute to attracting investment and competition between
suppliers. Herewith, the duration of the procurement procedures is a negative factor, which
increases the costs of contractors, although the procurement procedures themselves are
extremely transparent.
Table 2. Infrastructure Driver Comparison, 2020.
2020
Germany
Spain
Poland
Driver
Rank
Driver_score
Rank
Driver_score
Rank
Driver_score
Activity
76,00
10,03
52,00
26,21
66,00
18,16
Financial markets
17,00
55,84
20,00
52,54
41,00
32,30
Funding capacity
9,00
76,36
25,00
51,15
29,00
46,93
Governance
12,00
78,53
17,00
74,90
21,00
67,58
Permits
32,00
75,46
23,00
80,37
64,00
46,61
Planning
33,00
76,65
38,00
74,33
40,00
73,44
Procurement
63,00
54,00
21,00
84,51
39,00
74,74
Regulatory
frameworks
2,00
80,37
21,00
70,44
22,00
69,60
Source: InfraCompass (2021).
The principal strong points of Germany in the development of infrastructure hubs are
as follows: 1) transparency of public procurement; 2) high credit rating of the country; 3)
high-quality insolvency protection system. Transparency of procurement is ensured by the
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
379
digitalization of procedures; it is possible to acquire an object in the country via the Internet,
where tender documentation and procedures, selection criteria are presented in detail.
Transparency of procurement processes stimulates competition, participation of contractors
and optimizes the price / quality ratio. GDP per capita helps maintain the AAA rating
provided by the country’s major rating agencies. In turn, Germany’s high credit rating allows
the government borrowing at a lower cost. Enhanced protection of enterprises from
bankruptcy and insolvency ensures the attraction of investment in infrastructure.
In Spain, the major factors in the development of infrastructure hubs and logistics are
as follows: an effective regulatory framework, effective tools of public administration,
providing support in the creation of enterprises. These crucial factors are complemented by
fair and transparent public procurement processes fostering competition between suppliers
and optimizing price / quality, performance through infrastructure investment. However, the
principal problems of Spain include a high level of public debt and the spread of the COVID-
19 pandemic, which causes problems in investing in new infrastructure projects.
The major strong points of Spain in the development of infrastructure projects are as
follows: 1) low cost of business setting up; 2) fast registration of companies; 3) honesty and
transparency of the procurement process. According to the data of the World Bank, the cost
of business setting up in Spain is 3,9% of per capita income (below the average of high-
income countries by 4,7%), which simplifies and facilitates the entry of new companies into
the market (World Bank, 2021a). Registration of real estate in the country takes only 13 days,
the efficiency of the process of which reduces the cost of the project and risks, stimulating
investments, and facilitating business processes. Public procurement processes are simple,
transparent and fair, which encourages the participation of contractors and competition,
increasing the price / quality ratio.
In Poland, regulatory frameworks and infrastructure management systems foremost
promote the development of infrastructure hubs encouraging private investment and
developing industrial competition. However, the level of activity in infrastructure
development and investment in private facilities remains low, despite the country’s
advantages. In order to encourage funding and promote competition, the government should
provide more support in setting up new businesses. Such support can be implemented by
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
380
reducing start-up costs, the time required to start a business, or by improving the efficiency
of property registration processes.
Table 3. Infrastructure Driver Comparison, 2017-2020
Driver / Country
2017
2020
Growth, +/-
DEU
60,543
61,620
1,078
Activity
9,146
10,026
0,880
Financial
58,392
62,247
3,855
Funding
53,451
56,567
3,116
Governance
70,382
68,956
-1,426
Permits
71,834
71,915
0,080
Planning
86,458
86,000
-0,458
Procurement
76,249
73,817
-2,432
Regulatory
72,573
75,517
2,944
ESP
56,356
57,370
1,013
Activity
21,041
26,205
5,164
Financial
57,444
56,922
-0,522
Funding
30,794
34,262
3,468
Governance
64,524
64,448
-0,076
Permits
75,888
76,269
0,382
Planning
61,458
61,000
-0,458
Procurement
73,499
71,067
-2,432
Regulatory
63,170
64,989
1,819
POL
51,453
48,441
-3,012
Activity
18,077
18,165
0,088
Financial
42,132
41,733
-0,399
Funding
44,352
46,383
2,031
Governance
57,945
57,135
-0,809
Permits
57,211
42,971
-14,240
Planning
64,583
65,000
0,417
Procurement
70,559
64,309
-6,250
Regulatory
64,295
63,526
-0,768
Total countries average
56,117
55,810
-0,307
Source: InfraCompass (2021).
The major strong points of Poland in the development of infrastructure projects are as
follows: 1) financial stability of the country; 2) high-quality system of protection against
insolvency; 3) transparency and honesty of public procurement. Consequently, the country
is one of the most financially stable, which contributes to a constant flow of financial
resources between investors and enterprises, providing an inflow of capital to projects.
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
381
According to the data of the World Bank, Poland has a developed system of protection
against insolvency (World Bank, 2021b), which helps attract investment in the
infrastructure. The public procurement process is transparent and fair thanks to a well-
developed regulatory framework, providing regulation of the selection method of private
partners for various forms of PPP, encouraging competition, participation, optimal price /
quality ratio.
In order to ensure the further development of the hubs, Germany, Spain and Poland
should use the existing potential in different dimensions. For example, in Germany, it is
advisable to develop instructions for defining procurement processes in the infrastructure
sphere. Currently, the country does not publish procurement guidelines for infrastructure
projects. The publication of the guidelines will provide contractors with information on
government processes, requirements, expectations, increase transparency and ensure
achievement of better quality-to-price ratio by the government.
In addition, Germany requires the development and publication of an infrastructure
development plan forasmuch as nowadays there is no cross-sectoral national or subnational
plan in the country. As a complement to the current transport development plan, the
infrastructure and logistics plan should highlight the basic challenges, investment
opportunities and government-planned responses to challenges. The principal challenges of
Germany include as follows: the problems of GDP growth due to the constant decline in the
automotive industry, international trade tensions, leading together to a reduction in the
projected values of GDP.
Spain has the potential to develop infrastructure projects, which has been
significantly reduced due to the 2008 crisis. In order to do this, the country should assess the
tendencies and challenges of all infrastructure sectors and markets that are of great
importance for its development. Currently, the corresponding assessment exists only in the
field of road infrastructure. Conducting such an assessment is of great importance in finding
interested investors, lenders for potential project financing. Similar to Germany, Spain is also
challenged by the long-term GDP growth trend at the level of 0,45%, while high-income
countries average 1,8% GDP growth trend. This limits the long-term funding potential of
infrastructure hubs. Another challenge for the country is the low cost of concluded
agreements in the sphere of PPP infrastructure, compared to the average for high-income
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
382
countries. Low cost may reflect the government’s choice concerning publicly fund
infrastructure.
The major opportunities towards ensuring the development of infrastructure hubs in
Poland include the development of a national or subnational infrastructure plan. It is
advisable to highlight information about the challenges and potential for investment in the
plan, as well as detail the government’s actions in the future. The duration of registration of
property, real estate, which amounts 135 days, is among the main problems for the country,
forasmuch as it significantly exceeds the average 25-day indicator for countries with a high
level of income. The time-consuming registration process increases the level of risk and cost
of the project, in particular, with the full transfer of ownership of the infrastructure. Poland,
like Spain, has a low value of PPP infrastructure agreements, which amounts 0,005% of GDP.
4. Discussion
The scientific literature discusses the democratic regime of participation of the
German government in the development of large infrastructure projects for sustainable
development (Zhou, Tan & Sedlin, 2018). According to the Federal Route Plan until 2030
(Deutscher Bundestag, 2016), from 2016 to 2030, the federal government will invest 226,7
billion EUR in maintaining existing infrastructure, as well as in new projects for the
construction and expansion of federal projects for roads, railways and waterways in
Germany. In accordance with the requirements of BVWP 2030, the principal objectives of
MTIP planning in Germany are as follows: 1) achieving mutual harmony between land use
and the natural environment; 2) mitigating negative consequences of interested parties
involved in land use; 3) guaranteeing social and economic benefits from investments in
infrastructure projects; achieving maintenance, upgrading and transformation of
infrastructure and improving the efficiency of the transport network through scientific
planning and decision-making. The study conducted by Funke, Plötz & Wietschel (2019)
also highlights the importance of reducing the negative environmental impact of the
transport sector in Germany through innovative technologies. In order achieve the objectives
outlined, the German government uses a planning regime with democratic participation
features, and the planning process itself involves broad public participation. In the context
of development of infrastructure hubs, Germany prefers social justice and strives to achieve
the goals of revitalization and social harmony. Therefore, the German government adopts
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
383
development strategies involving broad public participation, the formulation of plans and
projects with an emphasis on environmental mitigation, decentralized planning,
coordination and balancing of interests by independent courts, which have become key
elements of their democratic participation planning. In this planning mode, ex post planning
costs for infrastructure (for instance, land compensation) are reduced (Zhou, Tan & Sedlin,
2018). The democratic regime of participation of the German government in infrastructure
development is connected with the “Europeanization”, a Common Transport Policy, which
has led to the advancement at the supranational level of “transportation infrastructure
projects through the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) concept” (Schenk,
2019). It is the EU that provides financial incentives, political and administrative support for
infrastructure hubs and logistics. As it has been revealed in the present research, Germany,
Spain and Poland have common strengths contributing to infrastructure development,
namely: first and foremost, fair and transparent public procurement, high-quality insolvency
protection system (Germany and Poland), high credit rating (Germany) or financial stability
of the country (Poland).
The formation of the EU has contributed to the development of Spain’s infrastructure.
Since joining the European Union in 1986, the country has experienced stable economic
growth, which has allowed it growing faster than other European countries. During this
period, the Spanish government made large investments in the public infrastructure, using
several types of approaches proposed by the EU. Most of the contractual PPPs concluded in
Spain were concessions for the development of toll highways. However, over the past few
years, there has been a significant increase in the number of other types of approaches, such
as “shadow toll or availability of payment contracts”. Contractual PPPs have also been used
to build and operate other types of infrastructure such as urban rail systems, hospitals,
prisons, etc. The recession of 2008 is known to have had very negative consequences for the
Spanish economy. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita fell sharply, and the
unemployment rate rose from 9% to 26% of the working population in just four years. The
crisis has also had serious consequences for the economic performance of concessions and
infrastructure development. Traffic level was declining much faster than GDP. In addition,
due to the liquidity crisis, the conditions imposed on borrowers by financial markets have
become much tougher. Along with this, the government has experienced severe budgetary
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
384
constraints on fulfilling its obligations under customs duty contracts and the availability of
payments (Ortega, de los Angeles Baeza & Vassallo, 2015).
It was Spain’s accession to the EU that ensured not only economic growth, but also
financing of the infrastructure for convergence with other member states, the use of various
types of PPPs in order to attract the private sector. Political support also contributes to the
infrastructure development (Ortega, de los Angeles Baeza & Vassallo, 2015). In Spain, like in
Germany, both central and regional governments are actively involved in building hubs,
which has contributed to the development of all forms of PPPs and the active involvement of
various interested parties (infrastructure developers, construction companies and banks).
The present research has revealed that Spain’s infrastructure is being developed through
transparent procurement, low opening costs and easy company registration.
Conclusion
In the course of the research it has been found that the common policy and strategy of
the EU as a supranational institution, determines the strategic goals and policies of Germany,
Spain, Poland in the field of infrastructure development and logistics. The countries are
characterized by similar features in financing and mechanisms for the development of
infrastructure and logistics hubs (investment mechanisms and various forms of public-
private partnerships). The policy of the countries provides not just the development of
infrastructure, but the formation of nodes (hubs) in order to optimize transport and logistics
flows. It is the EU that provides financial incentives, political and administrative support for
infrastructure hubs and logistics. As it has been revealed in the present research, Germany,
Spain and Poland have common strong points contributing to the infrastructure
development, namely: first and foremost, fair and transparent public procurement, a good
insolvency protection system (Germany and Poland), high credit rating (Germany) or
financial stability of the country (Poland). In the countries under consideration, the common
factors for the development of infrastructure facilities and nodes are as follows: 1) in
Germany, the development of infrastructure hubs is ensured by an effective regulatory
framework and established rules for granting permits, a high-quality legal system, and a
stable financial sector; 2) in Spain, the crucial factors in the development of infrastructure
hubs and logistics are an effective regulatory framework, effective tools of public
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
385
administration; 3) in Poland, the regulatory framework and infrastructure management
systems foremost promote the development of infrastructure hubs.
References
CEC (2006). Communication from the Commission: Keep Europe moving – Sustainable
Mobility for our Continent. Mid-term Review of the European Commission’s 2001 Transport
White Paper. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
CEC (2007). Communication from the Commission: Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
CEC (2009). Communication from the Commission: A Sustainable Future for Transport:
Towards an Integrated, Technology-led and user Friendly System Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels.
Çeviköz, Ü. (2016). Could Turkey become a new energy trade hub in South East
Europe. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 15(2), 67-76. http://turkishpolicy.com/article/813/could-
turkey-become-a-new-energy-trade-hub-in-south-east-europe
Crescenzi, R., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2008). Infrastructure endowment and investment as
determinants of regional growth in the European Union. Eib Papers, 13(2), 62-101.
https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/44893
Deutscher Bundestag (2016). Entschließungsantrag. Drucksache 18/10535. Available at:
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/18/105/1810535.pdf
EC (2011). White Paper on Transport: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area –
Towards a Competitive and Resource-efficient Transport System. European Commission,
Brussels.
Funke, S. Á., Plötz, P., & Wietschel, M. (2019). Invest in fast-charging infrastructure or in
longer battery ranges? A cost-efficiency comparison for Germany. Applied energy, 235, 888-899.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.134
InfraCompass (2021). Available at: https://infracompass.gihub.org/compare-
countries/?country=DEU%2cESP%2cPOL
Kreutzberger, E. (2010). Lowest cost intermodal rail freight transport bundling networks:
conceptual structuring and identification. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure
Research, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.2.2880
Kreutzberger, E. (2016). Intermodaal railvervoer moet innoveren: Vergelijking van de
voordelen van schaalvergroting of omloopversnelling in de innovatieprojecten Marathon,
Spider, Twin hub en Spectrum. In Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 2016.
https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/intermodaal-railvervoer-moet-innoveren-
vergelijking-van-de-voorde
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
386
Kreutzberger, E., & Konings, R. (2016). The challenge of appropriate hub terminal and hub-
and-spoke network development for seaports and intermodal rail transport in
Europe. Research in transportation business & management, 19, 83-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.05.003
Mindur, L., & Hajdul, M. (2011). The concept of intermodal network development in Poland
using multi-agent systems. Transport problems, 6, 5-16.
Morin, P., Krieger, M., Durand, D., Puillat, I., & Farcy, P. (2015). The Joint European Research
Infrastructure Network for Coastal Observatories: Achievements and Strategy for the
Future. https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00349/46022/
Ortega, A., de los Angeles Baeza, M., & Vassallo, J. M. (2015). Contractual PPPs for Transport
Infrastructure in Spain: Lessons from the Economic Recession. Transport Reviews, 36(2), 187–
206. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1076904
Outlook (2017). Global Infrastructure Hub. Global Infrastructure Outlook & InfraCompass.
Available at: https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/1652/20170913-ipfa-presentation-
outlook-compass.pdf
Perez-Montiel, J. & Manera, C. (2021), Government public infrastructure investment and
economic performance in Spain (1980-2016). Applied Economic Analysis, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEA-03-2021-0077
Rodríguez-Pose, A., Crescenzi, R., & Di Cataldo, M. (2015). Government quality and the
economic returns of transport infrastructure investment in European regions.
http://institute.eib.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Luxembourg-2016-Rodríguez-
Pose.pdf
Romberg, H. H. (1996). Berlin-developing a hub for eastern Europe. In Airport capacity and
development funding (pp. 222-234). Thomas Telford Publishing.
Romero, M. J., & Van Waeyenberge, E. (2020). Beyond typologies: What is a Public Private
Partnership?. In Critical Reflections on Public Private Partnerships (pp. 39-63). Routledge.
Rutherford, J. (2005). Networks in cities, cities in networks: territory and globalisation
intertwined in telecommunications infrastructure development in Europe. Urban
Studies, 42(13), 2389-2406.
Schenk, R. J. (2019). Transportation Infrastructure Policy in Germany. International Public
Policy Association, ICPP4, Montr´eal 2019 Panel: Public Policy and Diversity in Federations.
https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5d10d16fdbc60.pdf
Schmidt, C. (2013). Hamburg-northern Europe's logistics hub: gateway to the world-hub for
Europe. Available at: https://epub.sub.uni-
hamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2014/35439/pdf/Standortbroschuere_2013_englisch_RL5.pdf
REVISTA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ZULIA. 3ª época. Año 13 N° 36, 2022
Valeria Slatvinska et al. /// The experience of EU countries towards the development … 373-387
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.24
387
Thierstein, A., & Conventz, S. (2014). Hub Airports, the knowledge economy and how close
is close? Evidence from Europe. 54th Congress of the European Regional Science Association:
"Regional development & globalisation: Best practices", 26-29 August 2014, St. Petersburg,
Russia
World Bank (2021a). Cost of business start-up procedures (% of GNI per capita). Available
at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.REG.COST.PC.ZS
World Bank (2021b). Time to resolve insolvency (years) – Poland. Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.ISV.DURS?locations=PL
Zakrzewski, B., & Nowacki, G. (2016). Pan-European Transport Corridor No. 2 and the
development potential of Mazovia municipalities. Autobusy: technika, eksploatacja, systemy
transportowe, 17.
Zhang, M., Janic, M., & Tavasszy, L. A. (2015). A freight transport optimization model for
integrated network, service, and policy design. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 77, 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.02.013
Zhou, T., Tan, R., & Sedlin, T. (2018). Planning Modes for Major Transportation
Infrastructure Projects (MTIPs): Comparing China and Germany. Sustainability, 10(10), 3401.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103401